Climate Change Denial Isn't About Science, or Even Skepticism

Let's suppose the world's legitimate scientific institutions and academies, climate scientists, and most of the world's governments are wrong.

Maybe, as some people have argued, they're involved in a massive conspiracy to impose a socialist world order. Maybe the money's just too damn good. It doesn't matter. Let's just imagine they're wrong, and that the polar ice caps aren't melting and the climate isn't changing. Or, if you prefer, that it's happening, but that it's a natural occurrence — nothing to do with seven billion people spewing carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere.

Would it still make sense to continue rapidly burning the world's diminishing supply of fossil fuels? Does it mean we shouldn't worry about pollution?

We could pretend global warming isn't happening, or that humans aren't a factor if it is. That would be crazy in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but even if it weren't, there would still be no reason to continue down the road we're on. Energy is at the heart of modern society's needs, but when the source is finite, it seems folly to be hell-bent on using it up in a few generations, leaving the problems of depletion and pollution to our children and grandchildren. The longer we delay implementing solutions to our energy challenges the more costly and difficult it will be when we have to face the inevitable.

So, why do so many people insist that we remain stuck with outdated and destructive systems and technologies? Why do so many try to throw roadblocks in the way of progress and solutions? And what can we do about it?

Many books and studies have addressed the first two questions, including Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, and Climate Cover-Up, by James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore. Those show that huge sums of corporate money have been spent on campaigns to sow doubt and confusion about issues ranging from the dangers of smoking to threats to the ozone layer to climate change. It's all about protecting corporate profits and interests. That doesn't explain why so many ordinary people buy the industry spin, but a number of theories have attempted to shed light on that phenomenon.

What's important, though, is for those of us who rely on facts rather than spin to look at solutions. We can all do much more to reduce our environmental footprints, but the problem has grown so much that large-scale efforts are needed, and many of these must come from decision-makers in industry, government, and academia. However, there appears to be reluctance in some of those circles to act unless the public demands it. And so it's up to all of us to become informed. Then we can hold our leaders to account and challenge those who refuse to see the big picture.

This public responsibility is especially important in light of stepped-up efforts to deny the reality of climate change or the role humans play in it. Cases in point are illustrated by the denialgate scandal revealed by the release of Heartland Institute documents and the revelation that Ottawa's Carleton University hired Tom Harris, a PR man for a number of astroturf groups with a mechanical engineering background, to teach a course on climate change.

There are many credible sources of information, and they aren't blog sites run by weathermen like Anthony Watts or industry-funded fake science organizations. One place to start is at skepticalscience.com. Click on the tab that says “Arguments” for scientific responses to all the main climate change denier talking points.

Ah, the oft used “Precautionary Principal”. Which basically says, “Even if we’re wrong about CO2 and CAGW, wouldn’t we still be better off to spend trillions of taxpayers’ dollars on renewable energy that isn’t really proven yet?”. No, I don’t think so.

And there is a real problem with Hansen’s continuing drastic predictions. His latest; “Ten years from now will be too late”, but what happens when 10 years have gone by and we’re still right here with leveling (or falling) temperatures? He will just look like another Green tool clamoring to keep the gravy train going.

When scientists stand up and speak for themselves instead of letting the activists like Hansen do the talking, then people will start to listen. Until then, speeches like this from David Susuki, et al, will go in one ear and out the other.

If you had your head on straight, chas, we wouldn’t have to remind you that Dr. James Hansen is a world leading climate scientist.

“Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused. It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses. In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.”

“”Even if we’re wrong about CO2 and CAGW, wouldn’t we still be better off to spend trillions of taxpayers’ dollars on renewable energy that isn’t really proven yet?”“

No one speaks like that except for exagerating deniers.

“And there is a real problem with Hansen’s continuing drastic predictions. His latest; “Ten years from now will be too late”, but what happens when 10 years have gone by and we’re still right here with leveling (or falling) temperatures?”

Why choose the the time period 10 years from now. While predictions say temps &CO2 will rise, we havn’t got a time machine. Why not look at what he has already predicted & said? Like in 1988 to a senate hearing when he said:

“The earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements,” Hansen told senators. “The global warming now is large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause-and-effect relationship to the greenhouse effect … Our computer climate simulations indicate that the greenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves.”

Sweating in the hearing room on a day of 98-degree record heat, Hansen told senators that there was “only a 1% chance of an accidental warming of this magnitude. … The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.”

Leveling or falling temps? What did he predict back then? Has it warmed since 1988? Was he wrong?

“He will just look like another Green tool clamoring to keep the gravy train going.”

Hansen was correct & was & is paid for expertise which has been proven correct more times than not.

Were you there disagreeing in 1988? Or just after Incoonvenient truth?

“When scientists stand up and speak for themselves instead of letting the activists like Hansen do the talking, then people will start to listen.”

Your argument is fallacious. Deniers would never listen to any pro AGW scientist, under any circumstance. What you mean to say is, when denier scientists start agreeing, then you will also.

Sorry, but Hansen, in his old age, has evolved into a hard core activist. There’s absolutely no denying it. Hansen is more interested in getting arrested at the Keystone protests these days than doing any actual ‘science’.

He does NOT speak for the average Climate scientist anymore and that has hurt the credibility of the whole ‘movement’ in the opinion of many rational thinkers on both sides. Spend some time reading Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate blog and you’ll understand what is really going on with the current science and opinion.

for your repeated failure to acknowledge that Dr. James E. Hansen is a world leading climate scientist, who like Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, and many more leading climate scientists, is speaking out against anti-science denial.

And the irony that’s lost on anti-science dittoheads like yourself is that your children & grandchildren will likely grow up thanking Dr. Hansen as we do Dr. Sherwood Rowland.

“The UC Irvine chemist, who died Saturday at 85, was one of three scientists who won the 1995 Nobel Prize in chemistry, The Times reported, for their work “explaining how chlorofluorocarbons, ubiquitous substances once used in an array of products from spray deodorant to industrial solvents, could destroy the ozone layer, the protective atmospheric blanket that screens out many of the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays.”

If you want to know what climate scientists have concluded, read their papers and non-technical abstracts, which can be found for most papers these days. If you want to know, do not rely on the blog of any single scientist especially one that hasn’t published a paper in quite awhile and has spotty record over the years, anyway. And whose last paper from 2006 paper in no way refutes much less advances a hypothesis overturning what the vast majority of her peers have confirmed in their investigations GHG drven global warming. And which paper is actually about warming climate trends.

However, anti-science deniers like chas &PJ, suckered & brainwashed by denier blogs like WUWT backed by tobacco & fossil fuel funded fronts like the Heartland Institute, are not interested in what leading scientists report or say about their research & the actual climate science.

Unleashed by denier bloggers like Tony Watts & spoon-fed by denier outlets like FAUXNEWS& Joe Bastardi, they infest science blogs in various incarnations – some more obvious than others – to willfully bash climate scientists & trash the climate science to create the illusion of a science debate in hopes of spreading doubt & disinformation amongst unwary readers.

Spend some time reading Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate blog and you’ll understand what is really going on with the current science and opinion.

Spend time reading Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate blog and you’ll understand what one notable contrarian wants you to think is really going on with the current science and opinion. Confirm that thinking by following Lindzen, Spencer, Monckton, Watts et al and you will become a fully-fledged member of the hopelessly confused.

To overcome this condition (which is terminal in only a few cases), stick to reading actual research peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals by those actively researching.

“Sorry, but Hansen, in his old age, has evolved into a hard core activist.”

When you have conducted numerous research, published dozens of papers on climate change, gone to senate hearings, given dozens of speeches, written books. What is left to get your word out to people that this is serious shit.

“Hansen is more interested in getting arrested at the Keystone protests these days than doing any actual ‘science’.”

Can you show me a denier scientist that has had an equal amount of research published in top journals like Science, or Nature ?

Coming from Suzuki, who owns large properties in Vancouver, Saltspring Island, Toronto, and Australia; promotes his books by beingchauffeured across the country in a diesel-powered rockstar tour bus; and has five children – I’d say he must know what he’s talking about!

Well, perception in regards to that is all subjective isn’t it? His 5 kids are from 2 marriages. The first 3 are in their late 40’s & early 50’s. The last 2 in their late 30’s & 40. Should he have said to his 2nd wife 40 years ago, I’m sorry, we can marry, but I can never give you the opportunity of being a mother, because I have already had 3 kids.

It was 40-50 years ago also. He was certainly into science & informing people of the environment, but the climate change debate was hardly the same 45 years ago. Everyone has 20/20 hindsight & wish they had a time machine to do it all again the right way.

Regarding his jetsetting. He has stated he regrets that & wishes he could do everything via video conference. But even with technology as it is, we can’t conduct a video conference with several hundred people. What he is doing is the only way he can address a large audience at once. The alternative is not inform people at all, or have many smaller presentations, which would have an even greater footprint.

Him being wealthy? Are you against capitalism or is it only ok for a denier to be successful & earn a living?

The point is, even though we have a capitalist economic model, we can still do things differently in terms of energy usage & waste. There is no point using an outdated energy source like fossil fuels in the 21st Century, when we have so much else at our disposal. No one is advocating going back to the cave. People like Suzuki are just advocating we can do the same but with less waste, be more efficient and make it so that future generations can enjoy the same level of comfort. I would have thought conservatives would be all over that.

Wow, the convolutions you go through to justify your hero’s hypocrisy is hilarious, I must say.

Clearly, Suzuki doesn’t believe his own urgent propaganda, since he does less than nothing to reduce his “carbon footprint” – which is at least 100 times as large as the average person, if anyone cares about that anymore. Yet you continue to cling to it.

I’m sure you can cook up all sorts of contorted rationalizations for Suzuki’s multiple luxury properties on different continents. Between him and Gore, they seem to be trying to outdo Saddam Hussein with his various palaces, private jets and yachts. Even Saddam had his bitter-ender sychophants who stuck by him to the very last. Welcome to the club, Phil.

“Him being wealthy? Are you against capitalism or is it only ok for a denier to be successful & earn a living?”

LOL! I doubt anyone would ever mistake Suzuki for a capitalist. He’s never had a job in the private sector in his adult life. He is paid by his taxpayer-funded tenured position at UBC, the government-funded CBC (which inexplicably continues to provide him with his soapbox at taxpayer’s expense), and his books which he promotes under the auspices of his tax-exempt “charity”.

Al Gore owns four sprawling mansions, including a new one right next to the ocean which he repeatedly claims will rise 100’, flies around in private jets, travels in motorcades, and owns a one-hundred foot yacht with matching jet-skis – while demanding the little people reduce their “carbon footprint” through ruinous taxation policies which he alleges will alter the Earth’s climate to be more pleasant.

Al Gore obviously doesn’t believe his own twaddle enough to act on it,

Alleging that one indvidual is inconsistent w/r/t their lifestyle transmits no useful information about the research science they discuss.

This is like saying: folks on Wall Street say that work ethic and inegrity are the most important things for success, and then when noticing that member of the profession has neither, concluding that hard work and integrity must not matter for success.

So again, your anecdote is meant to impart what exactly about the phenomena under discussion? And/or the body of research science that supports its conclusions?

Alleging that one indvidual is inconsistent w/r/t their lifestyle transmits no useful information about the research science they discuss.

This is like saying: folks on Wall Street say that work ethic and inegrity are the most important things for success, and then when noticing that member of the profession has neither, concluding that hard work and integrity must not matter for success.

So again, your anecdote is meant to impart what exactly about the phenomena under discussion? And/or the body of research science that supports its conclusions?

Yes, Gore and Suzuki are no true Scotsman are they? Otherwise they would live in caves & survive on licking moss from rocks. The converse is ok for Watts with electric car & solar powered house isn’t it?

The curse of knowledge is a frustrating thing. With deniers, the only result is the backfire effect.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Keep In Touch

Merchants of Doubt, a new film from Food Inc. director Robert Kenner, hits the big screen nationwide this week and it is already making controversial headlines as the climate deniers go on the attack as predictably as possible.

Merchants of Doubt zooms in on the anti-science campaign outlined in Naomi Oreskes' book of the same name, and...